Everyday Taxi Drivers: Do Better Navigators Have Larger Hippocampi? RUNNING TITLE: EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS

bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license.

Title: Everyday taxi drivers: Do better navigators have larger hippocampi? RUNNING TITLE: EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS

Steven M. Weisberga, Nora S. Newcombeb, & Anjan Chatterjeec

aUniversity of Pennsylvania, bTemple University

Steven M. Weisberg ([email protected]), Anjan Chatterjee

([email protected]), Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania,

Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Nora S. Newcombe ([email protected]), Department of Psychology, Temple

University, Philadelphia, PA 19122.

Declarations of interest: none

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steven M. Weisberg, at

Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA.

Email: [email protected]. Phone: 610-212-3113. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 1

Abstract

Work with non-human animals and human navigation experts (London taxi drivers)

suggests that the size of the hippocampus, particularly the right posterior hippocampus in

humans, relates to navigation expertise. Similar observations, sometimes implicating other

sections of the hippocampus, have been made for aging populations and for people with

neurodegenerative diseases that affect the hippocampus. These data support the hypothesis that

hippocampal volume relates to navigation ability. However, the support for this hypothesis is

mixed in healthy, young adults, who range widely in their navigation ability. Here, we

administered a naturalistic navigation task that measures cognitive map accuracy to a sample of

90 healthy, young adults who also had MRI scans. Using a sequential analysis design with a

registered analysis plan, we did not find that navigation ability related to hippocampal volume

(total, right only, right posterior only). We conclude that navigation ability in a typical

population does not correlate with variations in hippocampal size, and consider possible

explanations for this null result.

Keywords: hippocampus, human behavior, spatial cognition, spatial navigation, structural MRI

Abbreviations: ASHS – Automatic Segmentation of Hippocampal Subfields BF – Bayes Factor ERC – Entorhinal cortex MRT – Mental rotation test OSF – Open Science Framework PHC – Parahippocampal cortex SAQ – Spatial anxiety questionnaire SBSOD – Santa Barbara sense of direction scale WRAT-4 – Wide range achievement test 4 – verbal

1. Introduction

Spatial navigation is a fundamental problem faced by any mobile organism. This ability

is supported in part by the hippocampus, which is theorized to construct a cognitive map –

knowledge of the distances and directions between landmarks (O’Keefe & Nadel, 1978; Tolman,

1948). Evidence for the role of the hippocampus in navigation comes from functional neural data

across a wide range of levels of analysis. At the single-cell level, place cells in the hippocampus

fire when an animal is in a certain location (Ekstrom et al., 2003; O’Keefe & Nadel, 1978). At

the voxel level, fMRI reveals that the patterns of voxels in the hippocampus map to information

about spatial distance (Vass & Epstein, 2013). At the whole hippocampus anatomic level, fMRI

reveals that the hippocampus is more active during active navigation than passive travel or when

following a familiar route (e.g., Hartley et al. 2003). So, neuronal activity in the hippocampus is

consistent with the hypothesis that the hippocampus constructs a cognitive map.

Intriguingly, there is reason to suppose that variations in the structure and function of

hippocampus may relate to variations in navigation abilities. Maguire and colleagues (2000;

2006) showed that the right posterior hippocampus was enlarged in taxi drivers from London,

who memorize an enormous catalog of spatial information and navigate easily around the

complex layout of London. Further work showed that elderly taxi drivers who were still driving

taxis had enlarged right posterior hippocampi compared to elderly taxi drivers who had stopped

(Woollett, Spiers, & Maguire, 2009). Although this work on taxi drivers presented among the

first data to show a correlation between hippocampal volume and aspects of navigation behavior,

the sample sizes were small (less than 20 participants in most studies). And despite making

claims about increased right posterior hippocampal volume and decreased right anterior

hippocampal volume in taxi drivers, the researchers did not test the key interaction between bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 3

posterior and anterior hippocampal volume between taxi drivers and controls, rendering this

conclusion unsupported by the data. Nevertheless, complementary research in non-human

animals has supported the notion that larger hippocampi are associated with better navigation

(Sherry, Jacobs, & Gaulin, 1992). Importantly, changes in hippocampal size may occur within an

animal’s lifespan. Male meadow voles, for example, show cell proliferation in the dentate gyrus

concomitant with hippocampal volume increases in the breeding season (when males have

greater spatial navigation requirements) compared to the non-breeding season (Galea &

McEwen, 1999). Similarly, compromise of the hippocampus is associated with spatial navigation

deficits. Poor spatial navigation occurs in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (Deipolyi, Rankin,

Mucke, Miller, & Gorno-Tempini, 2007; Konishi et al., 2018; Moodley et al., 2015; Plancher,

Tirard, Gyselinck, Nicolas, & Piolino, 2012), patients with brain lesions (Kolarik, Baer,

Shahlaie, Yonelinas, & Ekstrom, 2018; Rosenbaum et al., 2000; Smith & Milner, 1981) and in

the elderly (Konishi, Mckenzie, Etcharnendy, Roy, & Bohbot, 2017; Moodley et al., 2015).

These groups show reduced hippocampal volume, suggesting that a healthy hippocampus is

critical for normal spatial navigation function.

Collectively, this body of literature seems to make a powerful case for an association

between hippocampal volume and navigation. However, evidence from healthy young adults is

more mixed. Some research studies are positive. First, there are findings that hippocampal

volume correlates with specific navigationally-relevant spatial tasks, notably perspective taking.

(in which an unseen view must be imagined). Perspective taking correlates with spatial memory

for large-scale environments (Weisberg & Newcombe, 2016) and elicits neural activation in the

hippocampus (Lambrey, Doeller, Berthoz, & Burgess, 2012). Hartley and Harlow (2012) created

a perspective-taking task in which participants match an image of three-dimensional mountains bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 4

to an image of the same mountains range viewed from a different perspective while ignoring

similar-looking foils. Accuracy on this task correlated with bilateral hippocampal volume.

Sherrill and colleagues (2018) measured participant’s ability to find a goal from first-person and

map perspectives after viewing a map with their position and the position of the goal. Accuracy

in the first-person condition correlated with bilateral posterior hippocampal volume. Second,

hippocampal volume correlates with specific strategies used by healthy young adults when

navigating. Bohbot and colleagues measured spatial navigation strategy using a task in which the

direction to goals could be based on which response should be made (e.g., to one’s right; thought

to rely on the caudate nucleus), or based on each goal’s position relative to external landmarks

(e.g., the church is to the right of the school; thought to rely on the hippocampus), independent of

success at finding a goal. They found large positive correlations with hippocampal volume and

the number of goals found relative to external landmarks (Bohbot, Lerch, Thorndycraft, Iaria, &

Zijdenbos, 2007). Third, using a self-report measure of navigation ability, two studies with large

samples reported correlations with hippocampal volume, although the effect sizes were modest

(Hao et al., 2016; Wegman et al., 2014).

None of these approaches is direct, however. Perspective taking is only one component of

successful navigation. Navigation strategy can be orthogonal to navigation accuracy (Marchette,

Bakker, & Shelton, 2011). Self-report is correlated with, but not the same as, navigation

accuracy. In a more direct look at the issue in typical adults using a real-world environment to

measure navigation ability found a large correlation with right posterior hippocampus. However,

that study suffers from the use of a small sample (Schinazi, Nardi, Newcombe, Shipley, &

Epstein, 2013), and we are unaware of other studies of this kind. Additionally, studies in this

literature vary in how they define the relevant hippocampal areas, analyzing right posterior bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 5

hippocampal volume (Maguire et al., 2000, 2006; Schinazi et al., 2013), total hippocampal

volume (Hao et al., 2016; Hartley & Harlow, 2012; Konishi et al., 2017; Wegman et al., 2014) or

both posterior hippocampi (Sherrill et al., 2018). Moreover, some studies correct for total brain

volume, gender, and age, whereas others do not. These different anatomic and analytic choices

undermine confidence in the premise that hippocampal structure correlate with navigation.

Here, we test the hypothesis that hippocampal volume is a biological marker for spatial

navigation ability in young, healthy human subjects. We test this hypothesis in a large sample

using a widely-used desktop virtual environment (Virtual Silcton; Weisberg et al. 2014;

Weisberg and Newcombe 2016). Virtual Silcton measures navigational accuracy while allowing

participants to vary in the strategy they use. As a primary behavioral measure of interest, we

chose total pointing performance – or how accurately participants could point to and from all

locations in Virtual Silcton. This measure captures the accuracy with which participants learned

the direction from each building to every other, and may substitute for the ability to take a novel

shortcut – a hallmark of the cognitive map. Unlike the task used by Bohbot and colleagues

(2007), the pointing task used in Virtual Silcton does not constrain participants to use one

navigation strategy or another.

We chose right total hippocampal volume as the primary target of analysis because right

hippocampal volume is more consistently reported to be related to navigation ability than left.

We thus chose right hippocampal volume as our primary confirmatory analysis, the simplest

measure of hippocampal volume, which would not introduce additional issues of reliability in

segmentation or choice of measurement technique. We registered one confirmatory analysis

using a sequential analysis design (Lakens, 2014) in which we planned to correlate right total

hippocampal volume with how well participants learned locations after navigating in Virtual bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 6

Silcton. However, whereas some data suggest that the posterior hippocampus on the right relates

most strongly to spatial navigation ability (Maguire et al., 2000; Schinazi et al., 2013), other

research shows this relationship with the right anterior hippocampus (Wegman et al., 2014) or

right total hippocampus (Hao et al., 2016; Hartley & Harlow, 2012; Konishi et al., 2017). Some

research has assessed as the primary measure of interest the ratio between anterior and posterior

hippocampus (Poppenk, Evensmoen, Moscovitch, & Nadel, 2013). For that reason, in

exploratory analyses, we also looked at anterior, posterior, and total hippocampal volume on the

right and left.

We also considered the possibility that non-hippocampal brain structures might relate to

navigation ability, or that alternative measures of navigation ability might better capture

hippocampal-based navigation. We thus conducted exploratory analyses relating accuracy on

several Virtual Silcton measures (subsets of the pointing task, a map constructed from memory,

and building naming) and non-Silcton measures (including mental rotation, verbal ability, self-

reported navigation ability, and self-reported spatial anxiety) to the volume of various brain

structures (including sub-divisions of left and right hippocampi, caudate nucleus, the amygdala,

and total cortical volume).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

We recruited participants by advertising to and recruiting from participants who had

participated in fMRI experiments from the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University

of Pennsylvania, asking them to participate in a one-hour study for which they would be paid

$10. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 7

We recruited 90 participants (54 women). Nineteen participants self-reported as Asian,

17 as African-American or Black, and 42 as Caucasian or White. Thirteen participants self-

reported as Hispanic, three reported multiple races, one reported other, and one participant did

not report ethnicity or race. Participants' average age was 23.1 years (SD = 3.94).

2.2.MRI Acquisition

Scanning was performed at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania using a 3T

Siemens Trio scanner equipped with a 64-channel head coil. High-resolution T1-weighted

images were acquired using a three-dimensional magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition

gradient echo pulse sequence. Because these data were collected for different research studies,

specific parameters varied by protocol (see Supplementary Table 1).

2.3. Volumetry Measures

We calculated neuroanatomical volume of cortical structures in two ways. For the main

analysis of the right hippocampus, we extracted hippocampal volume in two ways – Freesurfer

and Automatic Segmentation of Hippocampal Subfields (ASHS). For the exploratory analyses,

including sub-regions of the hippocampus and additional neuroanatomical structures, we focus

on the parcellation from ASHS in the main text, but include analyses from Freesurfer in the

supplementary results.

We used Freesurfer 6.0 (Iglesias et al., 2015) software to extract volume estimates of

cortical and subcortical regions as part of the standard recon-all pipeline. We segmented

posterior and anterior hippocampus manually using Freesurfer's hippocampal parcellation.

Anterior hippocampus was defined as all voxels in this parcellation that were in all slices anterior

to (and including) the last coronal slice with at least 3 pixels that could be identified as the uncus

(as defined in Morey et al. 2009). We then segmented posterior and anterior hippocampus bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 8

manually using Freesurfer's hippocampal parcellation. Anterior hippocampus was defined as all

voxels in this parcellation that were in all slices anterior to (and including) the last coronal slice

with at least 3 pixels that could be identified as the uncus (as defined in Morey et al. 2009). We

also used the ASHS pipeline, which performs automatic parcellation of the hippocampus and

other medial temporal lobe structures, including estimates of posterior and anterior hippocampus

(Yushkevich et al., 2015).

2.4. Behavioral and Self-report Measures

2.4.1. Demographics.

We asked participants to report their biological sex, gender, ethnicity, age, education

level, and handedness.

2.4.2. Wide range achievement test 4 – verbal (WRAT-4; Wilkinson and Robertson

2006).

The WRAT-4 Word Reading Subtest is a measure of verbal IQ that correlates highly with

the WAIS-III, and WISC-IV (Strauss, 2006). The WRAT-4 Word Reading Subtest requires

participants to pronounce fifty-five individual words. Each participant's score is the number

of words pronounced correctly out of 55. Any participants who reported speaking any

language besides English as their first language were excluded from these analyses (eight

participants were excluded based on this criterion).

2.4.3. Spatial anxiety questionnaire (SAQ; Lawton 1994).

This self-report measure of spatial anxiety consists of eight 7-point Likert-scale items that

ask participants to indicate their level of anxiety when confronting situations such as

"Locating your car in a very large parking garage or parking lot," and " Finding your way to

an appointment in an area of a city or town with which you are not familiar." bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 9

2.4.4. Santa Barbara sense of direction scale (SBSOD; Hegarty, Richardson, Montello,

Lovelace, & Subbiah, 2002).

This self-report measure of navigation ability consists of fifteen 7-point Likert-scale

items such as "I am very good at giving directions," and "I very easily get lost in a new city."

The average score for each participant has been shown to correlate highly with performance

on behavioral navigation tasks in real and virtual environments (Hegarty et al., 2002;

Weisberg et al., 2014).

2.4.5. Mental rotation test (MRT; Vandenberg and Kuse 1978; adapted by Peters et al.

1995).

This computerized version of the MRT consists of two 10-item sections of multiple-

choice questions. Participants have three minutes per section. Each item consists of one

target two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional shape made up of connected cubes, and

four answer choices, also made up of connected cubes. Two of the answer choices are the

same configuration of cubes, but rotated in 3D space. The other two answer choices are a

different configuration. Participants received two points per correct choice, and lost two

points per incorrect choice. Zero points were awarded for each omission.

2.4.6. Virtual Silcton (Schinazi et al., 2013; Weisberg & Newcombe, 2016; Weisberg et

al., 2014).

Virtual Silcton is a behavioral navigation paradigm administered via desktop computer,

mouse, and keyboard. Modeled after the route integration paradigm (e.g., Hanley and Levine

1983; Holding and Holding 1989; Ishikawa and Montello 2006; Schinazi et al. 2013),

participants learn two routes in separate areas of the same virtual environment by virtually

traveling along a road indicated by arrows (see Figure 1). They learn the names and locations bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 10

of four buildings along each of these routes. Then, they travel along two routes which

connect the two areas from the first two routes. Virtual travel consisted of pressing arrow

keys (or the W, A, S, and D keys) on a standard keyboard to move in the environment, and

moving the mouse to look around. Participants were constrained to travel only along routes

indicated with arrows. That is, we surrounded each route with invisible walls that restricted

movement off the routes, but could be seen through. Participants could move and look at

whatever pace they chose. Participants had the opportunity to learn each route once. At a

minimum, we required participants to travel from the beginning to the end and back to the

beginning of each route, but participants could spend as much time and do as much

backtracking as they liked. Buildings were indicated by blue gems, which hovered over the

path, and named with signs in front of the building.

Figure 1.

Screenshots and map of Virtual Silcton. Screenshots from Route A and B (A) and aerial map

of Virtual Silcton, never seen by participants (B). Buildings were indicated by blue gems, which

hovered along the path and named with yellow and red signs. Small white circles on the map

indicate the front door of each building, which was the exact spot participants were asked to

point to during the pointing task. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 12

Participants were tested on how well they learned directions among the buildings within

each of the main routes, and among buildings between the main routes. Testing involved two

tasks. For an onsite pointing task, participants pointed to all buildings from each building they

learned. The participant viewed the virtual environment along the route, next to one of the

buildings they learned, and moved the mouse to rotate the view and position a crosshair toward

one of the other buildings, then clicked to record the direction. The name of the building at the

top of the screen then changed, and the participant pointed to the next named building. The

dependent variable was calculated as the absolute error between the participant's pointing

judgment and the actual direction of the building (if this difference was greater than 180°, it was

corrected to measure the shorter of the two possible arcs). We calculated pointing error

separately for within-route trials and between-route trials separately. This resulted in 32

between-route trials and 24 within-route trials. Of the 24 within-route trials, 14 were mutually-

intervisible (i.e., if any part of the building being pointed at was visible from the building being

pointed from, it counted as a mutually-intervisible trial), while 10 were not.

Participants also completed a model-building task wherein they viewed a rectangular box

on a computer screen and birds-eye view images of the eight buildings. Scrolling over the

buildings with the mouse revealed a picture of the front view of the building and its name.

Participants were instructed to drag and drop buildings to the position in the box they believed

the building would be located (as if they were creating a map), without regard to the orientation

of the buildings or to the map. The model-building task was scored using bidimensional

regression analyses (Friedman and Kohler 2003).

Finally, in the building naming task, participants were shown pictures of each building

and asked to name the building to the best of their ability. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 13

2.4.7. Debriefing and strategy questionnaire.

We asked participants two debriefing questions: "What was the hardest part of the

navigation test?" and "Did you have trouble remembering the names of the buildings as well

as the positions? Describe strategies you used to try to remember the names and locations of

the buildings."

2.5. Experimental Procedure

Participants completed the MRI scan as part of a separate experiment either in our lab, or

in another lab at the University of Pennsylvania. Then, participants were recruited to participate

in the behavioral study in a separate session. In the behavioral session, participants first provided

and documented informed consent, then completed the demographics and WRAT-4 measures,

followed by the SAQ, SBSOD, and MRT. Then, participants completed Virtual Silcton and the

debriefing questionnaire.

2.6. Registration and Analysis Plan

This study was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/ea99d/)

after data collection was completed for 50 participants and data analysis was completed for 33

participants. The analysis plan was created as described in the registration documents to formally

establish A) one of the multiple possible ways of analyzing the data to address our hypothesis,

and B) a sequential analysis data collection procedure.

We based our analysis plan on the simplest possible correlation between overall structural

volume of the right hippocampus (Fischl et al., 2002) with overall pointing performance on

Virtual Silcton. This analysis was chosen because it requires the least human subjectivity in data

coding, and, based on the empirical literature that the right hippocampus is most likely to relate

to navigation. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 14

We proposed a sequential analysis plan because the results from 33 participants were

ambiguous (a marginally significant correlation, but with a small sample size). Given the

difficulty of recruiting participants with MRI data, sequential analyses allow flexibility in

determining sample size. We used the extant literature to create large and small p-value

thresholds after which data collection would stop and the results would be reported. The large p-

value cutoff was based on the effect size between self-reported navigation ability and

hippocampal volume reported by Hao and colleagues (2016) as our smallest effect size of

interest. The small p-value cutoff was based on using q < .05 (p < .05 after applying the

sequential analysis correction for multiple comparisons; Lakens 2014). We used power = 80%

and would collect 20 participants batches until either we obtained a p-value that was smaller than

q < .05, or until we reached 90 participants total (at which point we would have an 80% chance

of detecting an effect significantly larger than our smallest effect size of interest).

Interim results that were reported on the registration on OSF used our analysis plan to

determine whether additional participants would need to be recruited. Since initial registration,

we learned of a pipeline that yields more accurate parcellations of hippocampal volume (which

we verified with visual exploration of the hippocampal segmentations), as well as providing

automated estimates of posterior and anterior volume (an exploratory question of interest).

Consequently, we used this new method of anatomic analysis which was not pre-registered.

2.7. Statistical Tools

All processed data and code are available on the Open Science Framework

(https://osf.io/ea99d/). All figures, analyses, and supplementary analyses are available in an

interactive Jupyter notebook (https://mybinder.org/v2/gh/smweis/Silcton_MRI/master). bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 15

Unless otherwise specified below, statistics were calculated using the scipy and numpy

packages in Python (McKinney, 2010; Oliphant, 2006). Data were manipulated with Pandas

(McKinney, 2010) and visualized using Matplotlib (Hunter, 2007). Repeated measures ANOVAs

were calculated using the ezANOVA package in R (version 4.4), using RStudio (RStudio Team

2016) . Effect sizes are, for t-tests, Cohen's d, corrected for correlations for within-sample tests,

2 and for ANOVAs, generalized eta squared (η g; Bakeman 2005).

3. Results

We first present results from the pre-registered analyses. Next, we describe several

multiple regression analyses we ran to match previous analyses (e.g., controlling for cortical

volume, age, and gender). We then present exploratory analyses using the following

progression. We focus on Virtual Silcton measures first, looking more broadly at subdivisions of

the hippocampus (right and left) before moving on to other subcortical regions and cortical

volume. Finally, we analyze non-Silcton measures, following the same progression from the

hippocampus to the rest of the brain.

3.1. Pre-registered Analyses

Our principal analysis was the correlation between right hippocampal volume and

overall pointing error on Virtual Silcton. We did not find a correlation between right

hippocampal volume and pointing error, r(90) = .02, p = .88. Converting this value to a t-statistic

yields a Bayes Factor (BF; calculated from http://pcl.missouri.edu/bf-one-sample; Rouder et al.

2009) in favor of the null hypothesis (BF01) of BF01 = 8.49. Using the original specified analysis

plan (automated Freesurfer hippocampal volume calculation) to extract hippocampal volume did

not change these results, r(90) = .07, p = .52, BF01 = 7.04. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 16

Although we did not specify whether outliers would be excluded in our pre-registration,

we re-ran this analysis excluding one outlier who had total right hippocampal volume that was

approximately 4 standard deviations below the mean. Omitting this individual resulted in a

slightly higher but still non-significant correlation, r(88) = .10, p = 0.38, and BF01 = 5.49 (see

Figure 2). Using the original specified analysis plan to extract hippocampal volume did not

change these results either, r(88) = .12, p = .28, BF01 = 4.80.

3.2. Multiple Regression Control Analyses

We wanted to determine whether there was a relation between right hippocampal volume

and the navigation measures after accounting for cognitive and demographic factors. These

control analyses are especially important because some (though not all) previous studies

controlled for age, gender, and cortical volume. To account for these additional sources of

nuisance variance, we ran several multiple regression analyses, controlling for gender, age,

verbal IQ, small-scale spatial ability, and cortical volume. Specifically, we modeled total

pointing error (and, in additional models, between-route and within-route pointing error) as a

linear combination of right hippocampal (or right posterior hippocampal) volume with MRT,

WRAT, gender, age, and cortical volume. No combination of regressors resulted in a significant

relation between hippocampal volume and pointing error. Results of the models are reported in

Table 1.

3.3. Exploratory Analyses

We conducted several exploratory analyses. We report uncorrected p-values, but interpret

findings from these analyses as exploratory results that invite replication in independent data. For

interpretability, with a sample size of n = 90, a Pearson's correlation of r = .21 would have a

probability of p < .05, uncorrected. Correcting for all possible pairwise correlations (between bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 17

major variables of interest) yielded a significance threshold of approximately r = .38. Because

these analyses were exploratory, we only describe correlations as significant if they passed the

Bonferroni-corrected threshold.

For hippocampal volume, we only used the results from the automated segmentation

pipeline (ASHS). The remainder of cortical volume calculations come from the Freesurfer

parcellation. See Supplemental Figure 1 for additional analyses using the Freesurfer and by-hand

segmentation.

Similar to previous research with Virtual Silcton, we observed differences in performance

on within-route pointing trials compared to between-route pointing trials (see Supplemental

Figure 2). On within-pointing trials, participants pointed to a building that was on the same main

route as the building they were standing near. On between-pointing trials, participants pointed to

a building that was on the other main route as the building they were standing near. We analyze

pointing data continuously, correlating pointing performance with brain and behavioral

measures. For the correlational analyses, we collapse across between-route and within-route

trials (total pointing error), but also analyzed them separately, as both show individual

differences. We also analyze pointing data categorically, splitting participants into three groups –

Integrators, who performed well on between-route and within-route pointing; Non-Integrators,

who performed well on within-route pointing but could not integrate the two routes, performing

poorly on between-route pointing; and Imprecise Navigators, who performed poorly on both

types of pointing trials. We created these three groups on the basis of a K-means cluster analysis

constrained to three groups on a large sample of approximately 300 participants from previous

Virtual Silcton studies (Weisberg & Newcombe, 2016). Using the cutoff values from these

groups yielded 34 Integrators, 42 Non-Integrators, and 14 Imprecise Navigators. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 18

Figure 2.

Relation between total pointing performance and right hippocampal volume. The overall

correlation (black line, black font) between total pointing performance (error in degrees,

reversed) and right hippocampal volume as measured by ASHS segmentation. One outlier is

excluded from this scatterplot, but results were not statistically different with the outlier

included. Despite numerical differences, the correlation coefficients obtained within each group

do not differ statistically from each other. Large circles indicate group means and dotted lines

indicate ± 1 standard error of the mean, calculated within group. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 19

3.3.1. Left and right, anterior and posterior hippocampus.

Correlations between left and right total, posterior, and anterior hippocampal volumes

were not related significantly with overall pointing, between-route pointing, or within-route

pointing (see Figure 3). The three pointing groups did not significantly differ in total left

2 hippocampal volume, F(2,87) = 0.42, p = .66, η g = .01, nor in total right hippocampal

2 volume, F(2,87) = 0.15, p = .86, η g = .003, nor in posterior left hippocampal volume,

2 F(2,87) = 2.53, p = .09, η g = .05, nor in posterior right hippocampal volume, F(2,87) = 0.68,

2 2 p = .51, η g = .02, nor in anterior left hippocampal volume, F(2,87) = 0.05, p = .95, η g =

2 .001, nor in anterior right hippocampal volume, F(2,87) = 0.06, p = .94, η g = .001. We also

assessed the correlation between the pointing measures and the ratio of posterior to anterior

hippocampal volume on the right and left. Some research has shown a link between a

relatively larger posterior hippocampus and performance on navigation ability tasks

(Poppenk et al., 2013). However, we did not observe such a relation (maximum r = -.13,

correlation between left posterior-anterior ratio with between-route pointing).

Figure 3.

Virtual Silcton pointing correlations with brain volume measures. Pearson's r

correlations between Virtual Silcton pointing measures and brain measures. Hippocampal

measures were calculated using ASHS, whereas additional brain area volume measures were

calculated using Freesurfer.

3.3.2. Cortical volume, brain volume, and other brain areas.

The only notable brain-behavior correlation we observed on the pointing task was a

positive relation with cortical volume, r(90) = .22, p = .037, though this did not exceed the

Bonferroni-corrected threshold of r = .38. The caudate, amygdala, and the other medial

temporal lobe structures (BA35, BA36, entorhinal cortex (ERC) or parahippocampal cortex

(PHC)) resulted in non-significant correlations.

3.3.3. Other Silcton measures.

The model building task (measuring overall configuration or measuring within-route

configuration separately) correlated negatively with hippocampal measures (-.20 < r < .00),

despite being positively correlated with pointing performance, r(90) = .58, p < .00001.

Overall, the correlation between pointing and hippocampal measures appeared stronger than

the correlation between model-building and the hippocampal measures. To test this

possibility statistically, we compared the correlation between pointing and each subdivision

of the hippocampus (left/right, anterior/posterior/both) with the correlation between model-

building and each subdivision of the hippocampus. Three subdivisions of the hippocampus

were significantly more correlated (p < .05, uncorrected) with pointing compared to model-

building: right anterior hippocampal volume, t(87) = 2.09, p = .04, left anterior hippocampus,

t(87) = 2.65, p = .01, and left total hippocampus, t(87) = 2.53, p = .01. Right total

hippocampus correlations between total pointing and model building were marginally

significantly different, t(87) = 1.87, p = .06. Due to the weak correlations overall, we

interpret this pattern conservatively as showing a possible differentiation of hippocampal

volume as it relates to distinct types of navigational representations.

3.3.4. Non-Silcton measures. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 22

We observed non-significant correlations (i.e., none surviving Bonferroni correction)

between the non-Silcton measures and the volume of various brain regions (see Figures 4 and

5). Self-report measures of navigation ability, the SBSOD and SAQ, were weakly correlated

with hippocampal volumes (Figure 5; -.06 < r < .13), whereas they were more strongly

correlated with caudate, amygdala, and total cortical and brain volume (.08 < r < 25; see

Figure 4). WRAT-4, the measure of verbal ability, was most strongly correlated with cortical

volume, r(90) = .16, p = .13, and brain volume, r(90), r = .15, p = .16, though neither of these

reached significance. Finally, the measure of small-scale spatial ability, MRT, was most

strongly correlated with cortical volume, r(90) = .30, p = .004.

Figure 4.

Virtual Silcton additional tasks correlations with brain volume measures. Pearson's r

correlations between Virtual Silcton measures and brain measures. Hippocampal measures were

calculated using ASHS, whereas additional brain area volume measures were calculated using

Freesurfer. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 24

Figure 5.

Non-Virtual Silcton tasks correlations with brain volume measures. Pearson's r correlations

between behavioral measures and brain measures. Hippocampal measures were calculated using

ASHS, whereas additional brain area volume measures were calculated using Freesurfer.

WRAT-4 = Wide ranging achievement test. SBSOD = Santa Barbara Sense of Direction scale.

SAQ = Spatial anxiety questionnaire. MRT = mental rotation test.

4. Discussion

The hippocampus plays a crucial role in spatial navigation in humans, but the volume of

the hippocampus may not be a biological marker for navigation ability among typical

populations. Using an established measure of individual differences in spatial navigation we did

not observe a correlation between gross anatomical properties of the hippocampus and pointing

and model-building measures – two major indicators of navigation accuracy. We note several

strengths of the current design. First, we used a navigational task that exhibits a wide-range of

individual differences in a relatively under-studied population (in this area) of young, healthy

adults. Second, we used a sample size large enough to detect small effect sizes and did so using a

pre-registered analytic plan.

While it is always difficult to determine the reason for a null result, we see three possible

interpretations for our results: 1) Hippocampal volume correlates with navigational ability in

extreme groups, but not in typical populations. 2) Structural properties of the hippocampus and

navigation behavior have a complex relationship. 3) Hippocampal volume correlates with

specific skills, not general navigation ability; successful navigation also requires cognitive

capabilities whose neuronal bases lie beyond the hippocampus.

4.1. Hippocampal volume correlates with navigational ability in extreme groups, but

not in typical populations

Data from multiple sources supports the idea that expert navigators have enlarged

hippocampi, whereas impaired navigators have smaller hippocampi. In humans, evidence for a

link between hippocampal volume and spatial navigation ability in experts first came from

studies of taxi drivers in London (e.g., Maguire et al. 2000) and in impaired navigators from

individuals with hippocampal lesions (Smith & Milner, 1981). Since then, additional research by bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 26

Maguire and colleagues has replicated and refined the evidence in taxi drivers, with several

studies showing enlarged right posterior hippocampi relative to different control groups

(Maguire et al., 2003; Woollett & Maguire, 2011), although this work suffers from small sample

sizes and a non-significant interaction between right posterior hippocampal volume and right

anterior hippocampal volume in taxi drivers and control groups. The association between

impaired navigators and smaller hippocampal volume has also been supported in studies on

pathology (Michel Habib & Sirigu, 1987; Mullally & Maguire, 2011; Packard & McGaugh,

1996), and in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease, which particularly affect the

hippocampus and its connections (Deipolyi et al., 2007; Nedelska et al., 2012; Parizkova et al.,

2018).

In the present study, we investigated navigation ability in a typical population of young,

healthy individuals. Our finding is consistent with more general assessments of navigation

ability, like those from self-report, that find a weak relation between hippocampal volume and

navigation ability in typical populations (Hao et al., 2016; Wegman et al., 2014). One way to

reconcile data from extreme groups with data from typical populations is to propose a nonlinear

relation between hippocampal volume and navigation ability (see Figure 6). At the extreme ends,

navigators who exclusively rely on hippocampal representations show growth in hippocampal

volume, whereas navigators who cannot rely on the hippocampus (because it has degenerated or

is gone) suffer the behavioral consequences. However, in the middle of the distribution, normal

variability in navigation (which is nevertheless wide) is not accounted for by hippocampal

volume. We consider other factors, which we discuss in the following two sections.

Figure 6.

Predicted model of navigation ability and hippocampal volume across impaired, typical,

and expert navigators. A visualization of the proposal that navigation ability relates to

hippocampal volume in a non-linear fashion such that impaired navigators (i.e., patients with

Alzheimer’s disease) and expert navigators (e.g., taxi drivers) show positive correlations with

hippocampal volume and navigation ability, whereas typical populations show no or weak linear

correlations. [N.B. The current study population and expert and impaired populations likely

overlap on navigation ability. If the groups completely overlap, this model is implausible. If

there is partial overlap, then we would expect higher correlations in expert and poor navigators,

which is very weakly the case, as in Figure 2. But this assumption should be tested empirically,

ideally through data collection on Virtual Silcton in patient groups and taxi drivers.] bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 28

4.2. Structural properties of the hippocampus and navigation behavior have a complex

relationship.

There are two distinct possibilities to consider here. First, the hippocampus may only be a

piece of the neural puzzle, providing specific computations and processes to a network of brain

regions to coordinate spatial navigation. Thus, rather than hippocampal structure relating to

variance in spatial navigation behavior, changes in the connections between, for example,

retrosplenial complex, the parietal lobe, and the hippocampus (Byrne, Becker, & Burgess, 2007;

Ekstrom, Huffman, & Starrett, 2017; Iaria et al., 2014) may characterize information flow around

the brain, which itself relates to spatial behavior. Indeed, medial temporal lobe lesions may yield

greater spatial deficits when those lesions include parahippocampal cortices (Aguirre &

D’Esposito, 1999; Habib & Sirigu, 1987). Similar to the difference between neural function and

neural structure within the hippocampus, however, it is unclear whether individual differences in

behavior would relate to connectivity structure (e.g., white matter tracts) or functional

connectivity activation patterns. Given the growing literature in this area, it would be a fruitful

and important avenue for future investigation.

The second possibility is that hippocampal volume may be too coarse a neuroanatomical

measure to show an association with navigation ability. Aspects of navigation behavior relate

only to the volume of specific subdivisions of the hippocampus, creating a complex picture of

structure-function relations. Indeed, across the literature, different hippocampal properties are

reported to correlate with navigation ability. Expert taxi drivers show increased right posterior

hippocampal volume but decreased anterior hippocampal volume (Maguire et al., 2000) although

these analyses exclude the body of the hippocampus (which we included as part of posterior

hippocampus). Yet, anterior hippocampal volume correlates with path integration (Brown, bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 29

Whiteman, Aselcioglu, & Stern, 2014; Chrastil, Sherrill, Aselcioglu, Hasselmo, & Stern, 2017)

and self-reported navigation ability (Wegman et al., 2014). And several studies show correlations

between navigation and total hippocampal volume (Hartley & Harlow, 2012; Head & Isom,

2010).

Additional data show correlations between navigation behavior and hippocampal

subfields which do not follow posterior/anterior divisions (Daugherty, Bender, Yuan, & Raz,

2016). In the present study, we did not assess hippocampal subfield correlations with navigation

ability because structural MRI data lacks the resolution to accurately parcellate the hippocampus

into subfields (Wisse, Biessels, & Geerlings, 2014). In light of these complexities, it is unclear

what if any aspects of hippocampal structure are important to navigation and what if any aspects

of navigation ability relate to hippocampal structure.

4.3. Hippocampal volume correlates with specific skills, not general navigation ability

Perspective-taking correlates with hippocampal volume (Hartley and Harlow 2012), as

does a particular navigation strategy (Konishi & Bohbot, 2013). In previous work with Virtual

Silcton we observed correlations with pointing task performance and a paper-and-pencil

perspective-taking test. Thus, perhaps hippocampal size is related to perspective taking, which is

one (but not the only) determinant of success in navigation on Silcton. Similarly, we have found

a complex relation between pointing accuracy on Silcton and navigation strategy, with

integrators performing well on shortcut tasks if they choose to take the short cuts—but not all do

(Weisberg & Newcombe, 2016). Again, partial overlap between hippocampal strategies and

navigation accuracy on Silcton would attenuate correlations of Silcton with hippocampal

volume. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 30

Navigation ability relies on a wide range of perceptual, cognitive, and meta-cognitive

processes, which likely do not all relate to the hippocampus (Ekstrom et al., 2017; Wolbers &

Hegarty, 2010). In the case of the taxi drivers, it is unclear whether their expertise encompasses

the creation of a cognitive map (or the capacity to do so) or maintaining an enormous catalog of

associational data (e.g., recalling the names of streets, landmarks, and regions). Either of these

may rely on the hippocampus, and cataloging associations correlates with the volume of

hippocampal subfields (dentate gyrus and CA2/3; Palombo et al. 2018). In the case of navigation

strategy, the ability to follow a familiar route through an environment, a viable alternate

navigational strategy, which does not depend on the creation of a cognitive map, relies on the

caudate (e.g., Marchette et al. 2011). The ability to recognize the same building from different

viewpoints, which correlates with self-reported navigation ability at least, relies on

representations in the parahippocampal place area (Epstein, Higgins, & Thompson-Schill, 2005),

rather than the hippocampus itself.

In navigation paradigms, like Virtual Silcton, where encoding and strategy choice are

unconstrained, navigation strategies that do not rely on the hippocampus could compensate for

impoverished cognitive maps. Variability in these non-hippocampally mediated cognitive

components of navigation could then underlie performance on Virtual Silcton in a typical

population. For example, we previously showed that variation in working memory relates to

performance on within-route pointing performance (Blacker, Weisberg, Newcombe, & Courtney,

2017; Weisberg & Newcombe, 2016), a process which likely does not rely on hippocampal

volume or even hippocampal function.

4.4. Cortical Volume and Navigation Ability bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 31

Although we did not predict a correlation between hippocampal volume and cortical

volume, cortical volume was the strongest correlate of the pointing task. To our knowledge, an

association between navigation ability and cortical volume overall has not been reported in the

hippocampal volume and navigation ability literature, although many studies correct for cortical

volume when analyzing hippocampal volume. Cortical volume is associated with measures of

general intelligence (Reardon et al., 2018), a finding consistent with the correlation we also

observed with cortical volume and mental rotation. We emphasize that this result was

exploratory, and the effect size small, but as the largest correlation we observed, we believe this

effect merits further study.

4.5. Limitations

Several aspects of the design of the current study limit the generalizability of our results.

First, although we observed a reasonable range of variability in both navigation ability and

hippocampal volume, they did not correlate with each other. Nevertheless, we might speculate

that the best navigators in the present sample (who arguably were at ceiling performance) would

have performed worse at a more difficult task than taxi drivers; and similarly, the worst

navigators in the present sample may have outperformed older adults or those with Alzheimer’s

disease. Second, navigation took place in a desktop virtual reality, rather than in the real world.

Although a large body of evidence supports the notion that hippocampal function can be elicited

from testing in virtual environments, it is reasonable to speculate that this setting may have

dampened the hippocampal contributions to navigation. Third, because we did not collect data on

strategy use, nor did we have functional imaging data during navigation, we are agnostic about

the strategies used by individual participants and whether their strategies engaged the

hippocampus. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 32

Future studies can address these limitations by A) collecting a more varied sample,

including variations in age, general intelligence, and demographics; B) collecting data in both

real-world and virtual environments; and C) collecting functional neuroimaging during the

navigation and pointing phase to dissociate the role of hippocampal function from hippocampal

structure.

5. Conclusion

In sum, this study limits the generality of the link between hippocampal volume and

navigation accuracy in a typical population. These findings have implications for the role of the

hippocampus in general navigation, and for the extrapolation of findings in expert and impaired

groups to healthy, young adults.

Acknowledgements: The authors wish to acknowledge Russell Epstein and Geoff Aguirre for

assistance with data collection of the original MRI data.

Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health [F32DC015203 to

S.M.W., and R01DC012511 to A.C.] the Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center [SBE-

1041707 to N.S.N. and A.C]. The authors also wish to acknowledge funders who supported data

collection of the original MRI data: NIH grants [U01EY025864 – Low Vision Connectome, and

R01EY022350].

References

Aguirre, G. K., & D’Esposito, M. (1999). Topographical disorientation: a synthesis and

taxonomy. Brain, 122(9), 1613–1628. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/122.9.1613

Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs.

Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379–384. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192707

Blacker, K. J., Weisberg, S. M., Newcombe, N. S., & Courtney, S. M. (2017). Keeping track of

where we are: Spatial working memory in navigation. Visual Cognition.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2017.1322652

Bohbot, V. D., Lerch, J., Thorndycraft, B., Iaria, G., & Zijdenbos, A. P. (2007). Gray matter

differences correlate with spontaneous strategies in a human virtual navigation task. The

Journal of Neuroscience : The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience. [Baltimore,

MD : The Society. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1763-07.2007

Brown, T. I., Whiteman, A. S., Aselcioglu, I., & Stern, C. E. (2014). Structural Differences in

Hippocampal and Prefrontal Gray Matter Volume Support Flexible Context-Dependent

Navigation Ability. JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, 34(6), 2314–2320.

https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2202-13.2014

Byrne, P., Becker, S., & Burgess, N. (2007). Remembering the past and imagining the future: A

neural model of spatial memory and imagery. Psychological Review, 114(2), 340–375.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.340

Chrastil, E. R., Sherrill, K. R., Aselcioglu, I., Hasselmo, M. E., & Stern, C. E. (2017). Individual

Differences in Human Path Integration Abilities Correlate with Gray Matter Volume in

Retrosplenial Cortex, Hippocampus, and Medial Prefrontal Cortex. ENEURO, 4(2),

ENEURO.0346-16.2017. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0346-16.2017 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 35

Daugherty, A. M., Bender, A. R., Yuan, P., & Raz, N. (2016). Changes in Search Path

Complexity and Length During Learning of a Virtual Water Maze: Age Differences and

Differential Associations with Hippocampal Subfield Volumes. CEREBRAL CORTEX,

26(6), 2391–2401. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv061

Deipolyi, A. R., Rankin, K. P., Mucke, L., Miller, B. L., & Gorno-Tempini, M. L. (2007). Spatial

cognition and the human navigation network in AD and MCI. NEUROLOGY, 69(10), 986–

997. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000271376.19515.c6

Ekstrom, A. D., Huffman, D. J., & Starrett, M. (2017). Interacting networks of brain regions

underlie human spatial navigation: a review and novel synthesis of the literature. Journal of

Neurophysiology, 118(6), 3328–3344. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00531.2017

Ekstrom, A. D., Kahana, M. J., Caplan, J. B., Fields, T. A., Isham, E. A., Newman, E. L., &

Fried, I. (2003). Cellular networks underlying human spatial navigation. Nature, 425(6954),

184–188. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01964

Epstein, R. A., Higgins, J. S., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2005). Learning Places from Views:

Variation in Scene Processing as a Function of Experience and Navigational Ability.

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(1), 73–83.

https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929052879987

Fischl, B., Salat, D. H., Busa, E., Albert, M., Dieterich, M., Haselgrove, C., … Dale, A. M.

(2002). Whole brain segmentation: automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the

human brain. Neuron, 33(3), 341–55.

Friedman, A., & Kohler, B. (2003). Bidimensional regression: Assessing the configural

similarity and accuracy of cognitive maps and other two-dimensional data sets.

Psychological Methods, 8(4), 468–491. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 36

Galea, L. A. ., & McEwen, B. . (1999). Sex and seasonal changes in the rate of cell proliferation

in the dentate gyrus of adult wild meadow voles. Neuroscience, 89(3), 955–964.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4522(98)00345-5

Habib, M., & Sirigu, A. (1987). Pure topographical disorientation: a definition and anatomical

basis. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 23(1),

73–85.

Habib, M., & Sirigu, A. (1987). Pure Topographical Disorientation: A Definition and

Anatomical Basis. Cortex, 23(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(87)80020-5

Hanley, G. L., & Levine, M. (1983). Spatial problem solving: The integration of independently

learned cognitive maps. Memory & Cognition, 11(4), 415–422.

https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202457

Hao, X., Huang, Y., Li, X., Song, Y., Kong, X., Wang, X., … Liu, J. (2016). Structural and

functional neural correlates of spatial navigation: a combined voxel-based morphometry and

functional connectivity study. Brain and Behavior, 6(12), e00572.

https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.572

Hartley, T., & Harlow, R. (2012). An association between human hippocampal volume and

topographical memory in healthy young adults. FRONTIERS IN HUMAN

NEUROSCIENCE, 6, 338. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00338

Hartley, T., Maguire, E. A., Spiers, H. J., & Burgess, N. (2003). The well-worn route and the

path less traveled: distinct neural bases of route following and wayfinding in humans.

Neuron, 37(5), 877–88.

Head, D., & Isom, M. (2010). Age effects on wayfinding and route learning skills.

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH, 209(1), 49–58. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 37

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2010.01.012

Hegarty, M., Richardson, A. E., Montello, D. R., Lovelace, K., & Subbiah, I. (2002).

ScienceDirect - Intelligence : Development of a self-report measure of environmental

spatial ability. Intelligence, 30(5), 425–447. https://doi.org/doi: DOI: 10.1016/S0160-

2896(02)00116-2

Holding, C. S., & Holding, D. H. (1989). Acquisition of route network knowledge by males and

females. Journal of General Psychology, 116, 29–41.

Hunter, J. D. (2007). Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment. Computing in Science &

Engineering, 9(3), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

Iaria, G., Arnold, A. E. G. F., Burles, F., Liu, I., Slone, E., Barclay, S., … Levy, R. M. (2014).

Developmental topographical disorientation and decreased hippocampal functional

connectivity. Hippocampus, 24(11), 1364–1374. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22317

Iglesias, J. E., Augustinack, J. C., Nguyen, K., Player, C. M., Player, A., Wright, M., …

Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. (2015). A computational atlas of the

hippocampal formation using ex vivo , ultra-high resolution MRI: Application to adaptive

segmentation of in vivo MRI. NeuroImage, 115, 117–137.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.042

Ishikawa, T., & Montello, D. R. (2006). Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in

the environment: Individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the

integration of separately learned places. Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 93–129.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.08.003

Kolarik, B. S., Baer, T., Shahlaie, K., Yonelinas, A. P., & Ekstrom, A. D. (2018). Close but no

cigar: Spatial precision deficits following medial temporal lobe lesions provide novel bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 38

insight into theoretical models of navigation and memory. Hippocampus, 28(1), 31–41.

https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22801

Konishi, K., & Bohbot, V. D. (2013). Spatial navigational strategies correlate with gray matter in

the hippocampus of healthy older adults tested in a virtual maze. Frontiers in Aging

Neuroscience, 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2013.00001

Konishi, K., Joober, R., Poirier, J., MacDonald, K., Chakravarty, M., Patel, R., … Bohbot, V. D.

(2018). Healthy versus Entorhinal Cortical Atrophy Identification in Asymptomatic APOE4

Carriers at Risk for Alzheimer’s Disease. JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE, 61(4),

1493–1507. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-170540

Konishi, K., Mckenzie, S., Etcharnendy, N., Roy, S., & Bohbot, V. D. (2017). Hippocampus-

dependent spatial learning is associated with higher global cognition among healthy older

adults. NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, 106, 310–321.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.09.025

Lakens, D. (2014). Performing high-powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 701–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2023

Lambrey, S., Doeller, C., Berthoz, A., & Burgess, N. (2012). Imagining Being Somewhere Else:

Neural Basis of Changing Perspective in Space. Cerebral Cortex, 22(1), 166–174.

https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr101

Lawton, C. A. (1994). Gender differences in way-finding strategies: Relationship to spatial

ability and spatial anxiety. Sex Roles, 30(11–12), 765–779.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544230

Maguire, E. A. (1998). Knowing Where and Getting There: A Human Navigation Network.

Science, 280(5365), 921–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5365.921 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 39

Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S. J.,

& Frith, C. D. (2000). Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers

— PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America, 97(8), 4398–403. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.070039597

Maguire, E. A., Spiers, H. J., Good, C. D., Hartley, T., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Burgess, N.

(2003). Navigation expertise and the human hippocampus: A structural brain imaging

analysis. HIPPOCAMPUS, 13(2), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.10087

Maguire, E. A., Woollett, K., & Spiers, H. J. (2006). London taxi drivers and bus drivers: A

structural MRI and neuropsychological analysis. Hippocampus, 16(12), 1091–1101.

https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20233

Marchette, S. A., Bakker, A., & Shelton, A. L. (2011). Cognitive Mappers to Creatures of Habit:

Differential Engagement of Place and Response Learning Mechanisms Predicts Human

Navigational Behavior. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(43), 15264–15268.

https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3634-11.2011

McKinney, W. (2010). Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python.

Moodley, K., Minati, L., Contarino, V., Prioni, S., Wood, R., Cooper, R., … Chan, D. (2015).

Diagnostic differentiation of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease using a

hippocampus-dependent test of spatial memory. HIPPOCAMPUS, 25(8), 939–951.

https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22417

Morey, R. A., Petty, C. M., Xu, Y., Hayes, J. P., Wagner, H. R., Lewis, D. V, … McCarthy, G.

(2009). A comparison of automated segmentation and manual tracing for quantifying

hippocampal and amygdala volumes. NeuroImage, 45(3), 855–66.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.033 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 40

Mullally, S. L., & Maguire, E. A. (2011). A New Role for the Parahippocampal Cortex in

Representing Space. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(20), 7441.

Nedelska, Z., Andel, R., Laczo, J., Vlcek, K., Horinek, D., Lisy, J., … Hort, J. (2012). Spatial

navigation impairment is proportional to right hippocampal volume. PROCEEDINGS OF

THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

109(7), 2590–2594. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1121588109

O’Keefe, J., & Nadel, L. (1978). The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map. Oxford University

Press.

Oliphant, T. E. (2006). A guide to NumPy. USA: Trelgol Publishing.

Packard, M. G., & McGaugh, J. L. (1996). Inactivation of Hippocampus or Caudate Nucleus

with Lidocaine Differentially Affects Expression of Place and Response Learning.

Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 65(1), 65–72.

https://doi.org/10.1006/nlme.1996.0007

Palombo, D. J., Bacopulos, A., Amaral, R. S. C., Olsen, R. K., Todd, R. M., Anderson, A. K., &

Levine, B. (2018). Episodic autobiographical memory is associated with variation in the

size of hippocampal subregions. Hippocampus, 28(2), 69–75.

https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22818

Parizkova, M., Lerch, O., Moffat, S. D., Andel, R., Mazancova, A. F., Nedelska, Z., … Laczo, J.

(2018). The effect of Alzheimer’s disease on spatial navigation strategies.

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING, 64, 107–115.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.12.019

Peters, M., Laeng, B., Latham, K., Jackson, M., Zaiyouna, R., & Richardson, C. (1995). A

Redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Test - Different Versions and Factors bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 41

That Affect Performance. Brain and Cognition, 28(1), 39–58.

https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1995.1032

Plancher, G., Tirard, A., Gyselinck, V., Nicolas, S., & Piolino, P. (2012). Using virtual reality to

characterize episodic memory profiles in amnestic mild cognitive impairment and

Alzheimer’s disease: Influence of active and passive encoding. Neuropsychologia, 50(5),

592–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.12.013

Poppenk, J., Evensmoen, H. R., Moscovitch, M., & Nadel, L. (2013). Long-axis specialization of

the human hippocampus. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 230–240.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2013.03.005

Reardon, P. K., Seidlitz, J., Vandekar, S., Liu, S., Patel, R., Park, M. T. M., … Raznahan, A.

(2018). Normative brain size variation and brain shape diversity in humans. Science (New

York, N.Y.), 360(6394), 1222–1227. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar2578

Rosenbaum, R. S., Priselac, S., Köhler, S., Black, S. E., Gao, F., Nadel, L., & Moscovitch, M.

(2000). Remote spatial memory in an amnesic person with extensive bilateral hippocampal

lesions. Nature Neuroscience, 3(10), 1044–1048. https://doi.org/10.1038/79867

Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for

accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 225–

237. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225

Schinazi, V. R., Nardi, D., Newcombe, N. S., Shipley, T. F., & Epstein, R. A. (2013).

Hippocampal size predicts rapid learning of a cognitive map in humans. HIPPOCAMPUS,

23(6), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22111

Sherrill, K. R., Chrastil, E. R., Aselcioglu, I., Hasselmo, M. E., & Stern, C. E. (2018). Structural

Differences in Hippocampal and Entorhinal Gray Matter Volume Support Individual bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 42

Differences in First-person Navigational Ability. Neuroscience.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.04.006

Sherry, D. F., Jacobs, L. F., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (1992). Spatial memory and adaptive

specialization of the hippocampus. Trends in Neurosciences, 15(8), 298–303.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(92)90080-R

Smith, M. Lou, & Milner, B. (1981). The role of the right hippocampus in the recall of spatial

location. Neuropsychologia, 19(6), 781–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(81)90090-7

Team, Rs. (2016). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc.

Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55(4), 189–208.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061626

Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional

spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47(2), 599–604.

https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1978.47.2.599

Vass, L. K., & Epstein, R. A. (2013). Abstract Representations of Location and Facing Direction

in the Human Brain. The Journal of Neuroscience : The Official Journal of the Society for

Neuroscience, 33(14), 6133–6142. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3873-12.2013

Wegman, J., Fonteijn, H. M., van Ekert, J., Tyborowska, A., Jansen, C., & Janzen, G. (2014).

Gray and White Matter Correlates of Navigational Ability in Humans. HUMAN BRAIN

MAPPING, 35(6), 2561–2572. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22349

Weisberg, S. M., & Newcombe, N. S. (2016). How do (some) people make a cognitive Map?

Routes, places, and working memory (dissertation). Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(5), 768–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000200

Weisberg, S. M., Schinazi, V. R., Newcombe, N. S., Shipley, T. F., & Epstein, R. A. (2014). bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/431155; this version posted January 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. EVERYDAY TAXI DRIVERS 43

Variations in cognitive maps: understanding individual differences in navigation. Journal of

Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3), 669–82.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035261

Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). Wide Range Achievement Test -- Fourth Edition.

Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Wisse, L. E. M., Biessels, G. J., & Geerlings, M. I. (2014). A Critical Appraisal of the

Hippocampal Subfield Segmentation Package in FreeSurfer. Frontiers in Aging

Neuroscience, 6, 261. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00261

Wolbers, T., & Hegarty, M. (2010). What determines our navigational abilities? Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 14(3), 138–146.

Woollett, K., & Maguire, E. A. (2011). Acquiring "the Knowledge" of London’s

layout drives structural brain changes. Current Biology : CB, 21(24), 2109–14.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.11.018

Woollett, K., Spiers, H. J., & Maguire, E. A. (2009). Talent in the taxi: a model system for

exploring expertise. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B,

Biological Sciences, 364(1522), 1407–16. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0288

Yushkevich, P. A., Pluta, J. B., Wang, H., Xie, L., Ding, S.-L., Gertje, E. C., … Wolk, D. A.

(2015). Automated volumetry and regional thickness analysis of hippocampal subfields and

medial temporal cortical structures in mild cognitive impairment. Human Brain Mapping,

36(1), 258–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22627

Table 1. Multiple regressions control analyses assessing total pointing performance with

right hippocampal volume and right posterior hippocampal volume.

Dependent variable Predictor variable b SE t p R2 Adj. R2 Total pointing (with total right 0.21 0.15 hippocampal volume) (constant) -0.09 0.14 -0.64 0.52 Gender (male = 1) 0.28 0.26 1.08 0.29 Right Total Hippocampal -0.05 0.12 -0.40 0.69 Volume MRT 0.30 0.11 2.83 < .01 WRAT 0.22 0.11 2.09 0.04 Age 0.15 0.10 1.44 0.15 Brain Volume 0.01 0.10 0.07 0.95 Total pointing (with total right posterior 0.21 0.15 hippocampal volume) (constant) -0.09 0.14 -0.64 0.52 Gender (male = 1) 0.27 0.25 1.07 0.29 Right Posterior Hippocampal -0.05 0.11 -0.46 0.65 Volume MRT 0.30 0.11 2.90 0.006 WRAT 0.22 0.11 2.08 0.04 Age 0.14 0.10 1.43 0.16 Brain Volume 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.97

Note. Results of two separate multiple regression analyses revealing no effect of right hippocampal volume, controlling for various other measures. SE = Standard error. MRT = Mental Rotation Test. WRAT = Wide-ranging achievement test.